A criminal steals your car. Said criminal drives the car to a store and then robs it. Criminal is caught in your car. The car was used in a crime. Based on your logic, you shouldn't get your car back, right?

Yet despite all this information and all these tools, the FBI still has to do much of the legwork in these 'terrorist' stings. They have to provide the 'sources' to buy materials, the sources that tell you how to use the materials and they even have to egg 'terrorists' to become terrorists.

Yet despite all this information and all these tools, the FBI still has to do much of the legwork in these 'terrorist' stings. They have to provide the 'sources' to buy materials, the sources that tell you how to use the materials and they even have to egg 'terrorists' to become terrorists.

"So this seems to me like using a disingenuous, pseudo-mathematical argument to justify the belief that ignoring consumers is something that could be good for Netflix long-term."

It's not disingenuous. The whole "the customer is always right" motto is largely a farce. The customer isn't always right and sometimes it's cheaper in the long run to say good bye to that customer versus doing everything possible to keep them.

Netflix could choose to ignore VPNs but then the content owners may decide to not sell Netflix their content because of 'piracy'. Not securing a show may have a larger impact on the bottom line and customer satisfaction then blocking VPNs.

You argue against a pseudo-mathematical argument, but your second paragraph is nothing but pseudo-mathematical argument.

Except that he wasn't charged with hacking the site. He was charged with sharing his login credentials. That's like me giving you a key to the apartment I just vacated and you used the key to get into that apartment and trash the place.